I'm ashamed of my state

[mikm]

Fuck all of you that voted "yes" on the same-sex marriage/union ban.

[Mattress]

ever ask yourself why these gay marriage bans are on the ballot and why they're suddenly being added to state constitutions?

It's because of activist judges making law instead of interpreting it. There's a serious breakdown in our government system here...

[dlichterman]

Now, I'm not gay or anything, but I really don't care. I remember hearing Lewis Black talking about it. Something along the lines of "let gays marry, then they can have all the problems that normal couples have"

[skryingbreath]

I want to fuck a man, just for spite.

[tuckerm]

As i said at my forums:

Ah yes but your wrong mikm.
At least your source is.

What voters voted on wasn't to ban same sex marrige but to re-write the mariage part of the wisconsin consitituation. It's not clear on what's legit or whats not. That's what happened in Massachutests, then gay marrige was ruled legal. It indirectly results in a ban on gay marrige but it's not through yet. The way i understand it is that congress still has to approve the bill which in turn, Doyle could Veto and that would leave the definiation of marrige in the consitituion fine as it is. So it's not over yet.

[mikm]

Like fuck it's not to ban gay marriage.

[tuckerm]

For anyone who wants to see the whole post: http://*******.com/tojy7

[elvispakistan]

If homosexual marriage is allowed then a bisexual couple should be allowed to marry.
So a male bisexual and his husband and wife , and the female bisexual and her husband and wife would be allowed to marry.
Example: Todd is married to Jane and Earl. Jane is married to Todd and Nancy. But Earl is also bisexual and married to Kim (Kim is not married to Todd) Nancy is married to Jane but not Todd she is married to Steve and he is another bisexual so it goes on and on and ......
I forgot my point..

[skryingbreath]

Polygamy and gay marriage are so relevant.

[tuckerm]

Originally posted by elvispakistan
If homosexual marriage is allowed then a bisexual couple should be allowed to marry.
So a male bisexual and his husband and wife , and the female bisexual and her husband and wife would be allowed to marry.
Example: Todd is married to Jane and Earl. Jane is married to Todd and Nancy. But Earl is also bisexual and married to Kim (Kim is not married to Todd) Nancy is married to Jane but not Todd she is married to Steve and he is another bisexual so it goes on and on and ......
I forgot my point..

[elvispakistan]

Originally posted by skryingbreath
Polygamy and gay marriage are so relevant.

Its not Polygamy I described, its a bisexual marriage scenario.
But now that you mention it , polygamy should also be allowed if homosexual marriage is allowed. Why not? What a man and 3 or 4 wives do in the privacy of there home is there own buissness. Why cant I and a few women agree to spend the rest of our lives together ? Is it impossible for a man to love more than one woman? All consenting adults....Its not religion I debate here its law and .....and really good tax write offs and love too!!!

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by Mattress
It's because of activist judges making law instead of interpreting it. There's a serious breakdown in our government system here...

I think it's more of a case of 'the people have spoken'. It seemed pretty clear that across the board people voted it into law. The judges don't have to make the decision, the lawmakers don't have to make it either. They let the people make it.

[tuckerm]

Ah, A Direct Democracy.

[swingdjted]

To me it just seems grossly unfair that some pairs of people get big financial breaks and other pairs of people do not. To make it fair to me, one of two things must happen:

Either,

marriage should either carry no financial government privileges,

or,

any pair of committed people should get said privileges, even if it were a pair of siblings or friends sharing living space and expenses.

[Mattress]

what about a man and a young boy?

[mikm]

A young boy is not a legal/consenting adult :|

[Mattress]

homosexuality hasn't always been legal either. and what is an adult anyway? just an arbitrary age that we've decided you are responsible for yourself. Who's to say that 18 is really the age of adulthood? For the Jews it's 13.

Why do we draw the line where we do, and for what reasons?

[elvispakistan]

Originally posted by swingdjted
To me it just seems grossly unfair that some pairs of people get big financial breaks and other pairs of people do not. To make it fair to me, one of two things must happen:

Either,

marriage should either carry no financial government privileges,

or,

any pair of committed people should get said privileges, even if it were a pair of siblings or friends sharing living space and expenses.

All true , take it a step further .Why make it a financial benefit for couples over singles .
I prefer to see the same financial breaks for married hetros , gays , ....and singles . Then consider tax breaks the wealthy have over the poor.....the answer is a flat tax.....and that is somthing extremely fair to all and will probably never happen , but should.

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by Mattress
Why do we draw the line where we do, and for what reasons?

My sentient-adult glass of water consented to being wet. It's also quite tasty.

Legal != Correct.

[tuckerm]

Well, the way i see it is that everyone whines of seperation of church and state well isn't gay marrige and abortions and such church\moral issues? They're moral issues and that should be up to each person. The government is just going to end up as a theocracy.

[swingdjted]

A flat tax would actually help the rich and hurt the poor - you income determines your tax bracket (your percentage of tax taken) - meaning the more your earn, the higher percentage of it becomes taxed.

Honestly though, I'm for gay rights, but nowhere near as much as I am for equal treatment of all people, whether gay or not, married or not.

[Mattress]

Originally posted by skryingbreath
My sentient-adult glass of water consented to being wet. It's also quite tasty.

Legal != Correct.

How the hell does that answer my question?

[skryingbreath]

It was a joke, take the stick out of your ass.

[edit]
In retrospect, it, in fact, does asnwer your question.

You asked how far it could be taken (in a sense), and I gave you an example. The bottom bit was in accordance concurrence to your view on what's legal.
[/edit]

[Mattress]

no, my question basically stated the inverse of what you wrote. illegal != incorrect and it asked where we get our notions of right and wrong from.

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by Mattress
no, my question basically stated the inverse of what you wrote. illegal != incorrect

Same shit. It implies the inverse as well.

|Legal != Correct|

Originally posted by Mattress
and it asked where we get our notions of right and wrong from.

Semantics. If you really want to split hairs, I can go each way. I was agreeing with you within my initial post, but you seem to want to pick apart what I say to use it against me. Be aware of who's arguing which spectrum of the issue before you attack.